The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-02-02
The Cong and Short Haul.
n. Y. Times, Jan. III

fourth section. The explanations and
arguments which have been made con-
firm US in our original opinion of the
meaning end effect of this provision.
Our confidence in the view first taken
was somewhat unsettled by the protests
of prominent railroad men who ought
to be capable of understanding the
exact meaning of the bill, and who have
exceptional knowledge of the facts and
requirements of the railroad business.
But we are convinced that their protests
have been based either upon 8 miscon-
ception or a willful perversion of the
long and short haul section. Their OBJ
stinacy in sdhering to sn untenable
ground was well illustrated in the speech
of the railroad Senator from California,
Mr.. Leland Stanford. on Monday, almost
Immediately after Senator Cullom had
made a clear exposition of the intent
and meaning of the long and short haul
provision. Mr.. Stanford based his whole
argument on an utter perversion of its
fair construction.
The essence of this section is contained
in the following words: at shall be un-
lawful for any common carrier subject
to the provisions of this act to charge
or receive any greater compensation IN
the aggregate for the transportation of
passengers or of like kind of property,
under substantially similar circumstan-
ces and conditions, for a shorter than
for a longer distance over the same line
in the same direction, the shorter being
included in the longer distance" As
Senator Cullom said, the qualifying
words and phrases are full of meaning,
and they furnish all the elasticity to
the provision that is necessary TO enable
railroads to conform to the requirements
of successful management. 1t was at
first assumed by some of the objectors
that this would require the charges for
long distances to be proportioned 10
those for shorter distances. But the
expression ain the aggregate plainly
shows that it applies only to the total
charge for the entire transportation.
The same meaning is involved IN the
prohibition of unjust discrimination
against localities. No one hes yet shown
that the obvious injustice of charging
more for transportation from a nearer
point to the same destination than from
more remote point, where the circum-
stances and conditions of the traffic are
substantially the same, is justified on
any general principle. If it is justified
in any case, it must be due to excep-
tional circumstances, and then the pro-
hibition would not apply.
It has been claimed that this provis-
ion would compel railroads either to
reduce their local rates or to increase
their through rates in many cases where
| it would be disastrous to their interests
and those of the communities which
they serve. But it has nothing to do
with the relations of through and local
charges in the proper sense of the terms.
| The circumstances and conditions OF
| through and local traffic are substanti-
ally different. Under the bill q railroad
sn gagged in interstate commerce could
not in fixing its local rates, discriminate
against localities by charging more tor
shorter than for a longer distance for
the same kind of freight transported
under similar conditions; neither coald
| it make like discrimination in.through
rates, and it is hard to see why it should
be permitted to do so. In almost any
conceivable case it would be an unjust
and unlustifiable discrimination between
localities.
1t has been said that the bill would
give an advantage TO shorter lines over
| longer ones between the same points.
But the prohibition applies only to
charges over the same line, and would
not prevent long line from putting its
rates as low as those of a rival short
| line 1t has also been said that it would
| force a railroad company controlling its
own charges on its own road to conform
them to its share of the compensation
| for a long haul over a line composed of
several roads. But, aside from the dis
similar circumstances and conditions in
such cases, the prohibition would only
apply to the one line over which
the traffic was carried, of however many
different railroads it might be composed.
Again, it has been claimed that the
act would prevent the reduction of rates
to meet the competition of water routes
which serve the same points as the rail-
roads. But the existence of such routes
and the necessity of low rates to com
pete with them and do business to and
from the points which they reach would
constitute such difference of circum-
stances and conditions that within the
requirements of business necessity the
bill would undoubtedly allow the dis
elimination.
Much stress has been laid upon the
effect which would be produced upon
the grain interests of the Northwest,
and the cotton, iron and other interests
of the South. 1t is said that in order to
bring our great grain supplies to the
seaboard and send the surplus TO foreign
markets through rates must be lower
than the roads can afford for immediate
traffic. But suppose the circumstances
and conditions are substantially similar
that is to say, carload or a trainload
of grain is destined for the port of New
York, either for the local market or for
shipment abroad, what reason is there
why line of railroad bringing it here
should be allowed to charge less in the
aggregate from Dakota than from Min
nesota, from Minnesota than from Hi
nois, from Illinois than from Ohio? IL
it may charge as much for the shorter
distance that is certainly as large
liberty as it can reasonably ask for.
The restriction will have nothing to do
with what may be charged for grain by
the bushel or -four by the barrel between
intermediate points.
Low rates for cotton from the South
to Northern distributing points are GER
tainly an advantage, but 1t is no advan-
J tage for the South or the North that
when it is to be transported under the
, same circumstances and conditions a
discrimination should be exercised
l against certain shipping points and in
: favor of others at a longer distance from
: its destination. The charge for trans-
. porting by the bale between local points
e would be in no way affected. So it is
said, the development of the coal and
iron interests of the South depends ON
low rites of transportation to or beyond
, the Ohio river But the bill would GER
a | II sntarfara NTH znnh
! They could be made as low as the rail-
: roads could afford or were willing to
! make them. Rates for iron or for coal
would not be affected by those for any
other kind of property. Coal or iron
sent By the trainload over through lines
would not be affected by the rates oil
transportation of the same material;
locally under different circumstances
and conditions. The simple fact would
2 be that the same line taking coal or iron
A in the car or by the train from one
r point could not charge more for the
same service from another point at a
| greater distance from the common des
tination, or more from the same point
. to a nearer destination than to one more
, remote, the circumstances and condI
tions of the traffic being substantially
n similar.
a In short, we do not see how this pro
!. hibition as to the shor. and long haul
fairly construed and judiciously applied
e can injure either the interests of the
n railroads, those of producers and ship
pers, or those of the business centres
n and seaports of the country. The out
Il cry raised against it seems TO have beer
d partly the result of ignorance or misun
Y derstanding and partly the outcome o
r. an objection of railroad managers u